South Korean Implementation of Communicative Language Teaching by Griffin Welshons a Master's Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfi
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
South Korean Implementation of Communicative Language Teaching By Griffin Welshons A Master’s Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements of the Degree of Masters of Arts in TESOL ____________________________ Adviser: Douglas Margolis, Ph.D. ____________________________ Date University of Wisconsin-River Falls 2020 Abstract This literature review identifies strategies for improving South Korea’s National Curriculum policy. Communicative language teaching (CLT) is the mandated approach for South Korea’s English education. Currently, CLT in South Korea has seen minimal adoption despite continued CLT-based government policies. This paper will first identify South Korea’s guiding English education principles to understand why CLT has not seen widespread adoption. Next, we examine the historical roots and origins of the policy. Afterward, a comparison between South Korea and other CLT English programs in Asia will address the similarities and differences between CLT practices in the region. South Korea’s pursuit of CLT is then juxtaposed to the vocal disapproval the policy faces. The paper then turns to an examination of strategies to address the main concerns voiced against CLT. These strategies will culminate in a demo lesson unit based on the CLT guidelines. This demo lesson serves as a model for how South Korean teachers might successfully incorporate CLT. Table of Contents 1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................1 2. English Policy Direction ......................................................................................................4 South Korean English Education from Past to Present ...............................................4 CLT in Asia ....................................................................................................................8 CLT Support ................................................................................................................ 11 3. Arguments against South Korean CLT ............................................................................ 13 Students and Parents Perspective on CLT ................................................................. 13 Teacher Perception on CLT ........................................................................................ 15 College Entrance Exam ............................................................................................... 20 4. A Way Forward for CLT in South Korea ........................................................................ 22 College Entrance Exam Adjustments ......................................................................... 22 Low Student English Ability ....................................................................................... 25 Teachers with Low English Levels .............................................................................. 28 Student Engagement .................................................................................................... 30 5. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 35 6. Unit Plan Introduction ...................................................................................................... 35 Lesson Plan #1 ............................................................................................................. 37 Lesson Plan #2 ............................................................................................................. 40 Lesson Plan #3 ............................................................................................................. 43 Lesson Plan #4 ............................................................................................................. 45 Lesson Plan #5 ............................................................................................................. 48 Lesson Plan Takeaways ............................................................................................... 50 Final Thoughts ............................................................................................................. 50 7. References .......................................................................................................................... 51 8. Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 55 Appendix A .................................................................................................................. 55 Appendix B .................................................................................................................. 56 Appendix C .................................................................................................................. 57 Appendix D .................................................................................................................. 58 Appendix E .................................................................................................................. 59 Appendix F ................................................................................................................... 60 Welshons 1 Introduction The development of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) occurred in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. CLT was encouraged by the Council of Europe, in part, to unify Europe during the Cold War, coinciding with other committees and agreements that served as precursors of the European Union (Manoliu, 2012; Roberts, 2004). The definition of CLT varies between researchers. For this literature review, the lens of Banchiu and Jireghie (2012) is used. According to them, the main features of CLT are the use of the target language, authentic texts, students’ personal experiences, and lessons reflecting real-world interactions. Since its introduction, CLT has grown in popularity (Akcan, 2016; Choi, 2016; and Kustati, 2013). South Korea is one of the many nations that has adopted the approach for its English education. Since 2000, South Korea has based its policy design on CLT principles (Chang, 2009; Whitehead, 2017). To illustrate the CLT direction taken by South Korea, English classes are to focus on authentic English usage (Chang, 2009). South Korea’s English education approach has seen only minimal adjustments since 2000 (Shin, 2012), such as the introduction of Teaching English Through English (TETE).1 The lack of policy changes since 2000 highlights South Korea’s continued commitment to CLT despite vocal criticism of the approach (Choi & Chung 2016). Historically, South Korea’s English doctrine has focused on grammar competence rather than communicative ability (Whitehead, 2017). Despite this fact, many Korean policymakers no longer believe that grammar expertise alone can achieve the English skills needed in a globalized world (Whitehead, 2017). This thinking is visible in the South Korean phenomenon called “Yeongeo Yeolpun,” or English fever (Lee, 2014; Shin, 2012). South Korea, once a proponent of 1 The application of TETE is to immerse students within the English language to facilitate language acquisition. Depending on the researcher, the term is written either as TETE or TEE. However, this paper only uses TETE. Welshons 2 isolationism, has become a leading nation. South Korea’s global rise comes from K-pop, Korean food, Korean gaming culture, the Korean military, Korean International companies, and a G-20 economy. In turn, the Korean populace has accepted the impact that English can have on their lives within a globalized world. Many South Korean businesses need to communicate with their international clients (Choi & Chung 2016). Thus, with English being the dominant language, South Korea has made English a required school subject (Shin, 2012). Due to South Korea’s demand for global and English skills, the country has faced many societal issues. For example, financial difficulties originating from education have stricken many South Korean families (Calonge, Hultber, Kim, & Rossi, 2017; Strother, 2012). Currently, South Korean families spend a disproportionate amount of money on their education. Strother (2012) reported that: South Korean parents poured $19 billion into private tutoring, cram sessions, and college exam prep in 2009, more than half the sum spent on public education. Some report this spending is the number one reason Koreans are deciding to have fewer children. In 2011, South Koreans spent an estimated $17.7 billion on private education. (p. 1) These numbers show the price families are pouring into their children’s education. To elaborate, Strother (2012) explained that “28 percent of South Korean households cannot make payments on their debts each month and cannot cover their monthly expenses with their current income” (p. 1). These findings reiterate that many South Koreans are paying extreme prices to achieve higher education goals. When isolating South Korean family’s expenditure on English education, it reveals similarly high spending. According to Calonge, Hultber, Kim, & Rossi (2017), 17.8 trillion won Welshons 3 (Korean currency) was spent on English education from elementary through high school. On average, 244,000 won was spent monthly, per student, on private English education. Lee (2014) found similar results, stating that $12 billion dollars are spent yearly on additional English education,2 totaling around 2 percent of South Korea’s GDP. Currently, South Korea spends